delete_ssl_ssh_profile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting: it declares the operation destructive by name, discloses the specific failure mode (profile in use by policies), and documents the return keys. It stops short of stating irreversibility, ADOM lock prerequisites, or whether dependents are affected beyond blocking the delete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and the WARNING are front-loaded, followed by terse Args and Returns blocks — well structured and easy to scan. The Returns section duplicates what the output schema already conveys, which is mild waste but not costly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return-value duplication is unnecessary, and the destructive operation lacks annotation coverage, meaning the description should say more about irreversibility and prerequisites (e.g., ADOM lock). The failure-mode warning is the one genuinely valuable addition; the rest is minimal for a delete tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only restates the schema titles: "adom: ADOM name" and "name: Profile name to delete." Neither clarifies accepted format, casing, or how to discover a valid profile name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete an SSL/SSH inspection profile") in the first line, which unambiguously separates it from siblings like get_ssl_ssh_profile, list_ssl_ssh_profiles, create_ssl_ssh_profile and update_ssl_ssh_profile. No ambiguity about what operation is performed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides one important usage condition — the call will fail if the profile is referenced by policies — which tells the agent when this call is not viable. However, it never names alternatives such as find_object_usage or list_ssl_ssh_profiles for pre-checking references, nor does it say how to resolve the in-use case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.